Salvation

Posted on 07/30/2010 by Paul Pavao

I like to say that there are two things we preach, which are two reasons for changing the way we "do" church in America.

  1. The Gospel is a life for a Life. Jesus calls us to give up our lives and enter into his. In the mind of Christ and the apostles, you can’t be a Christian without forsaking your life (dying to self) and giving yourself to follow Jesus Christ.
  2. Such disciples are called to do that together. Not together as in holding a couple meetings a week or attending the same Bible study. Together as in family: together for our whole lives, taking care of each other’s needs. Christ’s family, filled with a love given by the Holy Spirit, should be far closer than biological families.

Our churches don’t preach that Gospel … that’s a problem.

Our churches are in the way of disciples being together. When disciples are forced—whether by false teaching or by an obligation to attend an institutional church—to be in fellowship with those who are not disciples, then their unity is destroyed.

That, too, is a problem.

But I don’t want to write about those things today. Instead, I want to write about a practical application of those things. I want to address …

What is Salvation?

Today I got an email notification that someone I once knew is becoming a pastor of a denominational church.

I wish him the best, but his situation is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with today’s Christianity.

This person lived at Rose Creek Village, very close to me, for a year or two. I got to know him very well. Really nice guy. If you met him, you’d like him. I liked him.

But he has a problem that is fatal to following Christ. He is unable to deal with difficult situations, even to the point of dishonesty. There are many problems he’d rather dodge than deal with.

You can’t do that and help people.

You certainly can’t do that and be a shepherd in the church of God.

In almost every denominational church I’ve been a part of, such a problem would go on forever, never dealt with.

Nor is it a minor problem. It affects his happiness and the happiness of his family on an ongoing basis. Because he can’t face problems, his family’s problems go along, never dealt with. Indeed, they had been compounding for decades when I met him.

Is such a man saved?

It depends what you mean. Is he going to heaven? I hope so. I hope he’s made enough of a real commitment to Jesus Christ and that he’s a kind (and thus loving) enough person that God will have mercy on him and let him into heaven.

But if you ask whether he is saved from himself, from the world, and from the devil, the answer is a clear no. There are areas where the devil has a free reign in his life and his family’s life to bring difficulties and torment, intense heartache that could be avoided by the teaching of Christ and power of the Holy Spirit … teaching and power that he cannot bring because he can’t face the problems.

He’s not unusual. He’s typical.

How many men and women have I seen weeping about the problems in their life that they can’t overcome despite a real faith in Christ?

I’ve seen many. And many others have simply learned to live with their difficulties, their addictions, and their conflicts because preaching is not enough to help them.

A Salvation That Comes Only from the Church

Dare I say that a real faith in Christ and good, Scriptural preaching are not enough to deliver men from their sins?

I do dare, and I dare because the Bible says so.

Exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:13)

There are sins that can only be overcome by being in the church, and a Biblical church at that … like the ones the apostles started. Churches that are family, that share their possessions and their lives, that take care of one another like brothers and sisters. Nay, not just like brothers and sisters, but like brothers and sisters empowered with a love that comes from heaven.

Until the day we’re willing to overthrow the traditions of men and reject a concept of church that accepts anyone who walks through the front door, we will not see the salvation I’m speaking of in this blog.

 

Posted in Church, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Gentleness: The Appearance of Paul, Part 3

Posted on 07/25/2010 by Paul Pavao

Let’s start with an unusual introduction …

The Middle Age Brain

I’m listening to a book on the Middle Age Brain—well, my wife is, and I’m eavesdropping—as we drive across Nevada on I-80.

The author is telling a story about looking for milk in the refrigerator one morning.

"What are you looking for?" her husband asked.

"The milk," she replied. "Did you drink it all."

His response? "It’s over here on the counter; you poured some in your cereal just a minute ago."

Oops.

Her point is that middle-age people really do have memory lapses, but apparently in most other areas there’s no loss at all. Experience is a great teacher, and middle-age adults tend to be very capable and possess that undefinable quality called "wisdom."

So why am I telling you this?

Where Were We?

I’m 49, and my middle-aged brain has real problems remembering what I’ve already written about.

So I’m going to get back into a series on the appearance of the apostle Paul, and we’ll hope I’m returning to the right spot. I have no internet here in the Nevada desert, so I can’t check.

We’ll also hope there’s actually some wisdom to pass on …

Gentle Among You

The phrase "gentle among you" comes from 1 Thessalonians 2:7 …

We were gentle among you, as a nurse cherishes her own children.

The passage we are talking about concerns building the church, and it takes gentleness.

Paul had two tasks; all apostles did.

  1. Evangelize
  2. Shepherd

Those are two separate gifts, unless you are an apostle. In that case, you must have both. (Proving that is a long study, especially involving the interchangeable Greek words kerusso and euaggelizo.)

When Paul discusses being gentle among the Thessalonians, he’s talking about the shepherding part of the work—making people strong enough to continue together after he has preached the Gospel to them.

In the Scriptures, "preaching" is always directed to the lost, "teaching" to the church. Thus, when Paul says he’s a preacher (1 Tim. 2:7), he means that he’s called to evangelize.

Gentle Shepherds

So often today, we picture a good shepherd as a good speaker. He’s a preacher, but as I just pointed out in the text box above, "preaching" is for the lost, not the church. You’ll never find an example of the church being preached to. The church is taught.

And the church is nursed.

When Paul compares his gentleness to that of a nurse cherishing her children, he’s not talking about a nurse like Cratchett from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Nothing gentle about her, and she doesn’t have any children in relation to her career as a nurse.

Paul is talking about a nursing mother, or a nursing mother hired by a rich person to nurse their baby.

(Gerber’s Baby Foods was not around in the 1st century, so they actually had to breastfeed their babies then. No plastic bottles with rubber nipples to suck on.)

So, let me ask you a question …

If you’re not a pastor, then the question is this. Do you feel like your pastor gently takes care of you like a nursing mother takes care of her baby?

If you’re a pastor, my question is the opposite. Do you feel that your job is to gently take care of the flock like a nursing mother watches her baby?

Thundering Sermons

Thundering sermons, heaping conviction from on high … is that your picture of a good pastor?

Why?

Do you have examples of this in Scripture?

Even in Paul’s most admonishing letters—1 Corinthians and Galatians—he heaps love and care on them along with the conviction. 1 Corinthians 1 is full of praise, not admonishment.

Galatians is a little different because unlike the Corinthians, who were merely giving in to the flesh (possibly to their own condemnation—1 Cor. 6:9-
11), the Galatians had left the Gospel. Paul leaps immediately into the problem because without the Gospel there is no fellowship.

But everywhere his appeal is evidently and clearly from love … and personal.

Notice that Paul saves all his invective for the condemned Judaizers. They are anathema. They need to be cut off. The Galatians, however, get pleading …

Oh, foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?

You have not injured me at all.

Where is the blessedness you spoke of?

My little children, for whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you. I long to be present with you and to change my tone.

I have confidence in you in the Lord … but he that troubles you shall bear his judgment.

There is simply no Scriptural precedent for thundering sermons.

I’m not saying a thundering sermon should never happen. Dear friends who are trying to serve Christ together will need to raise their voice to one another occasionally.

However, thundering sermons week after week from one man to an audience resembles nothing found in Scripture or in the early church.

Thundering "Prophets"

"Well, my pastor is a prophet," you may say.

First, not all prophets are called to be harsh. Prophets are only harsh when they’re speaking to people who have departed from the way of God.

Second, prophets—plural—are supposed to speak one by one, and everyone can prophesy … at least, according to Scripture.

Ah, but I’ve forgotten. Evangelical Christians believe THE BIBLE, not what the Bible actually says. THE BIBLE is to be honored, praised, and never questioned … unless it says something that requires us to change what we’re doing—like having every member participate in our meetings—in that case, we should never bring that passage up again.

Oops, slipped into a little sarcasm there. In fact, I have a thundering sermon I’d like to give on that BIBLE believers who don’t believe or care what the Bible says …

Gentle Shepherds, the Bible Way

But the point today, my Bible-believing brothers—those who actually love what God says—is that we shouldn’t let tradition get in the way of obeying God, especially in an area as important as this … shepherding the flock.

Sheep will perish—no, sheep are perishing en masse—if we don’t change this.

Sheep need gentle, caring shepherds who know their name (Jn. 10:3).

Do we need thundering sermons, or do we need shepherds (they were plural in the early churches) who will actually notice when 1 sheep is missing from the 100. After all, you can’t leave the 99 to go after the 1 unless you know the 1 is missing!

Cultivating Gentleness

Gentleness is a fruit of the Spirit. That means that if you don’t do anything to cultivate spiritual fruit, then the fleshly fruits of strife, envy, and jealousy will grow instead.

Gentleness will not just happen, and human gentleness is not what the church needs.

There is always no better example of any spiritual fruit than our Lord Jesus Christ. It is obvious that Jesus was not always gentle by the human definition of gentle.

Nonetheless, note that both children and sinners wanted to be around him.

Is that true of you?

As for his disciples, they were half-terrified of him, but they wanted to be around him. They knew that he had the words of life, and they knew he was to be followed. He was clear and occasionally frustrated with them, but he took the time to teach them to be like him.

This was the gentleness of Jesus Christ.

It is the gentleness we need as well.

 

Posted in Gospel, Miscellaneous, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Climate Change/Global Cooling and Media and Scientific Honesty

Posted on 07/23/2010 by Paul Pavao

Listen, I believe global warming is real and caused by man—for a couple reasons I’ll mention later—but the incredible dishonesty by media and scientists makes me so angry that I want to join the other side.

How I Got on This Subject

I haven’t had much time on the internet lately. I’ve been on a trip to California, working very hard to encourage some discouraged saints and bring them together in the power of the Holy Spirit.

So this afternoon I have a couple hours of internet time. I’ve been learning some things about humidity lately—as you can tell from some recent posts, and I was very curious about the recent high humidity heat wave in Tennessee.

I was looking up 1999 temperatures in Tennessee because I remember that summer being much hotter than this one, with temperatures climbing to 103o and higher regularly and heat indexes occasionally up to 114o.

The Dishonesty That Got Under My Skin

In the process I read an article that says …

Climate change promises to bring with it longer, hotter summers to many places on the planet. This June turned out to be the fourth-hottest month ever recorded—globally—scientists are reporting. With more heat waves on the horizon, and a big one currently sweeping much of the U.S. (Scientific American)

It’s not that this is directly dishonest. It’s the constant barrage of information like this that seems to add up to a conclusion. Meanwhile, some extremely important bits of information are completely left out.

What You’re Not Being Told

Phil Jones resigned from the Climate Research Unit in the UK after the "Climategate" scandal. (Several committees have determined that the unit did nothing drastically wrong, but that’s no wonder. They only did what everyone appears to be doing, skewing the information.)

The BBC, unlike any American news sources that I know of, interviewed Phil Jones and asked him some very hard, very direct questions. The one that ought to matter to a lot of us is …

Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

Phil Jones’ answer to this was no, but it wasn’t no to global cooling. It was no to "statistically significant." Here’s what followed his no answer …

This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. (Emphasis mine)

Did you catch that?

Since 2002, the globe has been cooling! Thus says a scientist who was forced to resign because it was alleged that he was skewing data in order to prove that Earth is warming!

Phil Jones is an avid supporter of man-caused climate change.

How About a Little Honesty on Climate Change

Have you ever heard that of the top 10 warmest years, four of them have been since the year 2000?

I have. Repeatedly.

Have you heard that the globe has reduced in temperature about 1/10th of a degree celsius since 2002?

Yeah, I’d never heard that, either, except on right wing talk shows that are accused of extreme bias and purposeful ignorance.

So who’s being biased and purposefully ignorant now?

Let Me Ask You a Question

Doesn’t it seem extremely irresponsible—and, in fact, purposely dishonest—to tell someone that global warming seems to be true based on the fact that 4 of the last 10 years are among the 10 warmest years on record without also telling them that there’s been an overall cooling trend the last 10 years?

Yeah, that’s what I thought, too.

Let Me Ask You Another Question

If your web site and national magazine are called Scientific American, then wouldn’t you consider it your obligation to your audience to present balanced, accurate, well-researched scientific information?

Yeah, me too.

And if you knew that our planet has had a cooling trend since 2002, would you consider it balanced, accurate, and well-researched to say, "Climate change promises to bring with it longer, hotter summers to many places on the planet"?

Yeah, I wouldn’t, either.

Reasons I Believe in Global Warming Despite the Dishonesty We’re Facing

  • Carbon dioxide has been known to be a greenhouse gas for almost a century, not just recently. In the last 50 years, we have burned a good portion of the fossilized plant life (i.e., coal and oil) that used to be trapped in the earth, releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
  • Shooting down global warming sanely and scientifically would make any group of scientists rich and famous, but none are doing so.
  • Glenn Morton, one of my favorite scientists and a geologist for oil companies, is arguing against global warming with a lot of vitriol and often irrelevant arguments. It seems to me that if he had a good case, then a researcher as good as Morton is would avoid all the anecdotes and local (and thus irrelevant) reports he leans on.

If you were enlightened by this article, then this one may give you more directions to research in.

 

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Greed and Glory from Men: The Appearance of the Apostle Paul, Part 2

Posted on 07/20/2010 by Paul Pavao

This series started by looking at Paul’s boldness and his avoidance of flattering speech.

All of these attributes come from 1 Thessalonians 2, and they are all the result of one thing: Paul’s focus on and commitment to the Gospel of Christ.

Paul never lost sight of the goal: preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation and transformation of all who believe.

Today’s topics come from 1 Thess. 2:5-6, where Paul says, " … nor with a pretext for greed … nor did we seek glory from men" (NASB).

Knowing Ourselves

Both these things …

  • Greed
  • Glory from men

… have to with personal gain.

We are all prone not only to being influenced by greed and glory-seeking, but also to being deceived by them.

Exhort one another daily, while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:13)

I have never heard of a deceived person who knew they were deceived.

By definition, a deceived person thinks they’re right. A person deceived by sin thinks he’s not sinning.

A person deceived by greed and glory believes they are not self-seeking. They believe they care about God and about the ministry of the Word of God.

Our protection from these things—according to the writer of Hebrews—is being exhorted/encouraged (parakaleo can mean either) on a daily basis.

Don’t judge yourself in such matters. Let God judge you, and ask your brothers and sisters in Christ to judge you as well … not in condemnation, but in exhortation and, thus, love.

Glory from Men

If there’s anything that has a stronger draw on the hearts of men than money (and women), then it’s glory. We love to be glorified. We love to be held in honor. We love to lead. We love to be respected.

This is such a strong influence on us that God has provided many ways for us to battle the temptation and deception of glory.

Deliverance from Glory-Seeking

1. Humiliation

First, you can count on God to humiliate you. You can count on God—if you’re really his and not marked for perdition because of your self-will—to ensure that you have plenty of opportunity to be humbled.

Humbled, though is a nice word. Humiliated, however, is not so nice. Do not fret when God humiliates you. It hurts badly, but it is important for your own salvation.

2. Weakness of the Flesh

Many Christians are deceived into thinking that God is concerned about correcting all their faults.

He’s not.

He’s concerned about making you useful, and perfect people aren’t all that useful. They’re impossible to follow.

It’s important that a minister of the Gospel have weaknesses and struggles. It’s important that people know they have them.

Paul had a "messenger of satan" that perplexed him. He cried out to God for deliverance, but God told him that God’s strength would only be made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9).

Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard had weaknesses and temptations … sexual ones. I assure you that they are not the only preachers of the Gospel with such struggles.

Their temptations and subsequent sin were exposed publicly.

God will not deliver you from weaknesses and temptations. He will only deliver you from sin.

Nor does God intend to deliver you by public exposure. He wants you to privately expose yourself.

Confess your faults one to another and pray for one another so that you may be healed. (Jam. 5:14)

We don’t make provision for weaknesses in leaders today. Leaders are separated from the people. The church is not a family. It’s more like a manager (the pastor), some players (active members of the church), and a crowd of fans—some for the team and some against it.

Thus, church leaders are forced to perform. No provision is made for the fact that God sends messengers of satan to them, working on them, wearing them down, making them needy, causing them to struggle … so that the power and the excellency would always be his and never theirs.

Church leaders must come from among us.

Obtaining church leaders from seminaries is a practice far more foolish and dangerous than we realize. Beyond the fact that it’s unbiblical, against the tradition of the apostles, and we don’t care … beyond all that, it’s horribly dangerous.

It produces Jimmy Swaggarts and Ted Haggards.

A church leader should be confessing his weaknesses, obtaining prayer, and being healed … humbled all the time, considering himself, lest he also be tempted.

The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. (Tertullian, Apology 39, c. A.D. 200)

We observe to come from divine authority, that the elder should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be approved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony. (Cyprian, "To the Clergy and People of Spain"; c. A.D. 250)

Conclusion

Let me just drop this here. I’m sure there’s more to say, but that’s a lot to chew on if you read all this.

I mentioned at the start that Paul was able to say those things in 1 Thess. 2 because he was focused on the Gospel and its transforming power. He was never moved from his goal. He was always steady and straight ahead.

The things above are true for disciples. They are true for those that want to be transformed by God.

Others may find that God doesn’t get in their way. He doesn’t humble them. Their goal is to honor themselves, not to honor God, and so God doesn’t deal with them at all.

Instead, they hear the worst thing that anyone can hear from God, which is "your will be done."

So if you have been called by God as a worker in his body or as a preacher of the Gospel, don’t fret your weaknesses … confess them. Ask for prayer. Be transformed and healed by the prayers of your brothers and sisters, and thus live in humility, apart from the glory of men, a true servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Last-Minute Hotel Deals at Expedia.com

 

Posted in Church, Gospel, History, Holiness, Modern Doctrines, prayer | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Appearance of the Apostle Paul

Posted on 07/16/2010 by Paul Pavao

I stole the title of this post, "The Appearance of the Apostle Paul," from an old friend of mine. I don’t remember precisely what he taught, as that was 20 years ago, but I’m pretty sure it was similar to what I’m about to say.

What I’m about to say comes from 1 Thessalonians 2.

I really want to get back to Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, but apparently that’s not for today. I really want to cover this.

Boldness

I Thess. 2:2: After we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi … we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the Gospel of God amid much opposition. (NASB)

One of my favorite people is K.V. Daniel of Mercy Homes Ministry.

K.V. is always focused. He’s relaxed and pleasant to be around, but he never loses focus of his goal. He is preaching the Gospel, making disciples, serving, and raising up children for Christ.

If what’s going on doesn’t enhance that purpose, then he’s moving on to the next thing.

The apostle Paul was like that. He’d been beaten and jailed in Philippi, then run out of town. But when he got to Thessalonica, he wasn’t thinking about resting … he was thinking about the Gospel.

He put aside everything else, and he preached the Gospel.

Notice that I titled this section "boldness," but I talked about purpose.

That’s really important.

Bold preachers of the Gospel have purpose, not just courage. If they relied on courage, then you and I would have an excuse. Maybe we’re not gifted with courage.

It’s not courage; it’s purpose.

Paul was focused on the goal; K.V. Daniel is focused on the goal; Noah Taylor (Rose Creek Village) is focused on the goal.

Those men inspire me. They are not more courageous than you and me; they are more focused than you and me.

It’s time for us to follow them.

No Flattering Speech

1 Thessalonians 2:5: We never came with flattering speech … (NASB)

This is tied to purpose as well.

Paul knew why he was preaching the Gospel, and it wasn’t to get people to agree that what he was saying is true.

Let me repeat that …

Paul knew why he was preaching the Gospel, and it wasn’t to get people to agree that what he was saying is true.

It was to transform people.

The Spirit of a Python

I mentioned the trouble Paul in Philippi. Do you remember why it happened?

While Paul was preaching a slave-girl with a spirit of a python …

I’m actually cheating a little here. The Greek word for the spirit she had is, literally, "python." However, the word is in reference to a legendary serpent from Pytho that guarded the Oracle of Delphi.

The snake we call a python is named from that legendary serpent. Luke wasn’t actually calling it a spirit of the snake we know, but a spirit of divination like what the Oracle of Delphi had.

Oh, yes. The Scriptures teach that spirits or demons are real, and we’ll survive our battles much better if we know the Scriptures are correct on that matter.

So this slave-girl with a spirit of divination doesn’t oppose Paul, she supports him!

She follows him around crying out, "These men are slaves of the Most High God, and they are proclaiming the way of salvation to you!"

Nice, huh?

Paul didn’t think it was nice. He wasn’t looking for approval, he was looking for transformation.

Therefore, he wasn’t going to share the stage with a demon.

You know the rest of the story. He became "greatly annoyed" with her, cast the demon out, ruined her owners’ business, and was thrown in jail for being a troublemaker.

Flattering Speech in the 21st Century

We’re not as astute as Paul. We share the stage with the devil all the time.

The Scriptures say that anyone who makes himself a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. In fact, friendship with the world is enmity with God.

Nonetheless, when we find that our Gospel is so watered down that it’s not saving anyone, what do we do?

Do we fix it?

No. We add friendship with the world.

We add basketball courts, rock ‘n roll music, rap, worldly hairdos and clothing styles, worldly speech, sports, and anything else we can do.

Then we obtain a modicum of success by preaching the world!

There’s a difference between loving those who are captured by the world and preaching worldliness.

I don’t want the stinky, homeless guys to be afraid to approach us. I don’t want the guys with the rings in their eyebrows to feel put off by us, nor the girls with the mohawks and black fingernails.

But it’s ridiculous if we’re encouraging followers of Christ to do those things!

Christ’s way doesn’t involve being cool, looking rebellious, or running contrary to the society in our clothing and hair.

We’ve done far worse than use flattering speech. We’ve changed the Gospel!

Not Ashamed of the Gospel

Paul didn’t just say he wasn’t ashamed of the Gospel. He said there is a reason he’s not ashamed of the Gospel …

Rom. 1:16-17 (wording from NASB, formatting from me):

I am not ashamed of the Gospel because …

  • it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes …
  • in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith

Paul’s Gospel transformed lives. It did so because he didn’t compromise it.

He didn’t change it because he was beaten with whips in Philippi. He didn’t change it to make people feel good. He gave it out true and straight, just the way he got it from Jesus.

What was it? His description of his Gospel was: “Repent, turn to God, and do works appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:20).

Of course, this repenting, turning to God, and doing works was accomplished by a grace that comes from God through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:8-10).

And that Gospel worked.

The Gospel and the Revelation of the Righteousness of God

Look at what Paul said …

In it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith

When Paul’s Gospel was believed, a righteousness of God was revealed.

There’s a righteousness that the Law produces. Paul wasn’t impressed with it. It involved a lot of failure, a lot of stealing, and a lot of adultery (Rom. 2:1-3; 17-24).

But Paul’s Gospel, when believed, caused a righteousness to come forth in believers that revealed the righteousness that God wants to bring to the earth.

That’s why the Gospel is of faith and not of works. It’s not that God doesn’t care what works you do. God knows that in your conscious, western, logical, overconfident, arrogant, selfish mind, you don’t even know what good works are, much less have the power to do them.

But if you believe the Gospel and obtain grace, then grace will teach you how to live seriously, righteously, and godly in this present age (Tit. 2:11-14). You will be created anew to do good works that God himself has prepared for you to do (Eph. 2:10).

Paul wasn’t ashamed of the Gospel of Christ because he was seeing it create disciples who revealed the righteousness of God. They were living the life of Christ through the incredible power of grace, a grace bestowed by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:14; 8:13; Gal. 3:3; 5:16-18; etc., etc., etc.)

More</h3

Well, that's more than enough for one post, don't you think?

I guess I'll leave …

  • not with a pretext for greed
  • nor did we seek glory from men
  • proved to be gentle among you, like a nursing mother
  • so fond an affection for you
  • imparting our own lives as well as the Gospel
  • working night and day
  • behaving devoutly, uprightly, and without blame
  • and exhorting, comforting, and testifying so others would walk worthy of God

… for future posts.

The part in 1 Thess. 2:13 that says that the word of God "performs its work in you who believe" (NASB), is basically covered above under "The Gospel and the Revelation of the Righteousness of God."

 

Posted in Gospel, Holiness | Tagged , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Water Baptism in Christian History

Posted on 07/15/2010 by Paul Pavao

For those of you that read my blog, but not Christian History for Everyman, I’m just letting you know I made a page on water baptism for that site.

It’s pretty comprehensive, even though it only touches on the mode of baptism by accident and that only one time.

 

Posted in Bible, Gospel, History, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , | 2 Comments

What Church Would be Like If All Christians Were Christians

Posted on 07/15/2010 by Paul Pavao

Enough weather. Back to following Christ.

I got asked today, "Why is church done the way it’s done? Why do we have the system we have?"

There’s one simple answer:

Church has to be done this way to accommodate the fact that the majority of church members aren’t saved.

What Church Would Be Like If All Christians Were Really Christians

If all "Christians" were really Christians, then we’d actually do what the Bible says …

  • When we come together, we’d all—or mostly all—come prepared to exercise our gifts when we met (1 Cor. 14:26). Opportunity would be give to all to do so (1 Cor. 14:31)
  • We’d talk about all the verses no one wants to talk about so that we could serve Christ better.
  • We’d obey the command to exhort/encourage one another every day (Heb. 3:13) rather than writing it off as incongruous with modern life.
  • It would be impossible to schedule every teaching because their would be teachers for whom teaching is a gift from God (as well as shepherds—plural—who have the ability to teach). Some teachings would have to be called impromptu, and other scheduled teachings would be canceled at times.
  • We’d talk about whether our meetings were boring and change them if they were. The meetings would probably rapidly change into something very different from three songs, offering, and a sermon.
Some churches have adopted a new traditional form of worship

  • We would pattern our church leadership after the multiple elder system of the Scriptures (Acts 14:23; 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4), not business-style with a CEO (the pastor), VP’s of the various departments (associate pastors), and a board of directors (deacon or elder board)
  • We’d care about the use of episkopos, presbuteros, and poimen in Scripture.
  • We’d stop accusing the Roman Catholics of violating Matthew 23:9 until we stopped referring to our CEO as "Pastor such and such."
  • We’d live like a family and expect to have input when a brother or sister takes a job, moves, marries, and certainly massive involvement should there ever be a divorce.
  • Those who expect privacy—meaning the family of God minding its own business on such issues—on such issues would be told they’re not Christians.

There’s a lot more examples that could be given. You who read this could probably give better examples than I could.

A Warning

It would do us well to take note of the fact that ALL of us once lived our lives under the influence of and in subjugation to the Prince of the Power of the Air, the spirit that currently works in the sons of disobedience.

All your unsaved church members are doing the same.

So if over half your congregation is not even interested in Jesus’ requirements for a disciple (Luke 14:26-33), then the devil does the majority of the voting in every one of your business meetings.

Yeah. Shocking, huh?

 

Posted in Church, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Revisiting Relative Humidity Versus Dew Point

Posted on 07/15/2010 by Paul Pavao

Here’s an easier version of yesterday’s post.

The Facts on Relative Humidity vs. Dew Point

Relative humidity doesn’t tell you anything. That percentage of humidity you hear on the news every day is worthless.

Dew point is a much better gauge of humidity.

Why Those Facts Are True

The rest of yesterday’s post explained why that was true, but here’s a shorter explanation …

  • Relative humidity measures the amount of water in the air in comparison to what the air can hold. Thus, it changes with the temperature.
  • Dew point tells you at what temperature the air will be fully saturated so that water will begin to condense out of the air into dew.

You don’t have to understand that last sentence. You only have to know that dew point tells you exactly how much water is in the air.

What Dew Point Tells You

Dew Point over 80o
Rarely happens in US. Often happens near Persian Gulf and Red Sea and in southeastern Asia. Oppressive. When temperatures are in the 90’s, dew points this high produce heat indices over 130
Dew Point over 75o
Very humid and uncomfortable
Dew Point 70 to 75o
Noticeably humid and uncomfortable
Dew Point 60 to 69o
Slightly humid
Dew Point below 60o
You won’t think it’s humid

Selmer, Tennesse

Dew point in Selmer was 78o today. That’s very, very high humidity for the US. It was worse than Houston or Dallas today.

Because the dew point was so high, the heat index was 102o even when it was only 88o in temperature.

Compare that with Sacramento that had a temperature of 94o, but the dew point was only 45o. The result was a heat index of 90o—less than the actual temperature.

 

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Humidity, “Relative” Humidity, and Dew Point

Posted on 07/14/2010 by Paul Pavao

I know this has nothing to do with the typical subjects of my blogs. But, let’s see … this is about God’s creation!

Eleven years ago, Tennessee had a very hot summer while I was living in a school bus converted into an RV … with no air conditioning because I didn’t have enough electricity to run an air conditioner. At some point that summer I noticed that as the weather got warmer, the humidity percentage got lower.

For example, in the morning, when it would be maybe 75 degrees out, the relative humidity would be way up around 90%. But by mid-day it would drop to 50 or 60%, and if the temperature got over 100 degrees, then it would drop to maybe 44% or something like that.

When it’s 100 degrees outside, 44% humidity seems miserable, and I always wondered why.

Today I found out.

The Important But Unknown "Dew Point"

Last year sometime I heard a newscaster say that the humidity was a certain percentage because the dew point was 72 degrees.

Suddenly I understood why humidity would change as the temperature rose.

When the dew point is 72 degrees, then if the temperature is also 72 degrees, you have 100% humidity.

Warm the temperature up to 80 degrees, and the air can hold more water, so the same amount of water in the air is now less than 100% humidity.

Also, you’ll see dew on the ground in the morning only if the temperature drops below 72 degrees overnight.

So relative humidity changes with the temperature, even though the day is just as humid whether it’s 80 degrees outside or 90 degrees.

It’s dew point that’s constant.

As a side note, I remember reading about a Boston Marathon that was run in 90-90 weather, meaning 90o with 90% relative humidity.

That didn’t happen and doesn’t happen in the US.

It was probably 90% relative humidity in the morning when the temperature was in the 70’s, but it wasn’t anywhere near 90% when the temperature reached 90 degrees.

America just doesn’t get dew points in the high 80’s … ever

Judging Humidity by the Dew Point

Houston is one of the most humid cities in the nation because it’s dew point averages 74 degrees during the summer.

Selmer, Tennessee, where I am, is nearly as humid, often running over 70 degrees in the summer.

Corpus Christi, TX and the Florida Keys have the worst humidity in the US, averaging a dew point of 75 degrees in July. The Florida Keys are more humid in winter, though, averaging over a 60-degree dew point even then, making it the most humid place in America.

This is how dew points feel …

  • Under 60 degree dew point: comfortable
  • 60 to 60 degrees: starting to feel humid
  • 70 to 75 degrees: very humid for most people
  • Over 75 degrees: oppressive
  • Over 80 degrees: Basically never happens in US; More on the Persian gulf below
  • Under minus 20-degrees-fahrenheit dew point there’s real problems with skin drying out

I’m visiting in Auburn, CA right now. It almost never feels humid here. That’s because most of the time the dew point is around 55 degrees, and it drops into the 40 sometimes. Not much moisture in the air at all.

Now, I want to remind you that if you have a 75-degree dew point, the weather will feel very humid even though the relative humidity is only going to be around 50% at 93 degrees. It will be around 90% relative humidity on the same day if the temperature is only 80 degrees.

Specific Humidity Versus Relative Humidity

Relative Humidity is that percentage you always hear. As I’ve been pointing out, it’s a useless number. On the very same day, with the very same real ("specific") humidity, you’ll have one percentage at 85 degrees and a lower percentage at 90 degrees.

Real humidity is measured in grams of water per kilogram of air. It’s a constant, and it tells you how humid the air feels, but no one ever tells you that number. Instead, weather reports do give the dew point.

For example, weather.com tells me that the dew point is 73 degrees in Selmer right now. (Note: You have to click the "details" link under the current temperature to see dew point.) The temperature is also 73 degrees, so the relative humidity is 100%.

It’s midnight here in California as I write this. It’s 2 a.m. back home in Selmer, but I know that the grass is almost certainly wet already.

The specific (real/actual) humidity is some amount of grams of water vapor per kilogram of air, but no weather service tells me that. Instead, they give me the dew point.

At 85 degrees, the dew point and the specific humidity will be the same as they were at 73 degrees, but the relative humidity won’t be 100% anymore; something closer to 70% instead.

The formula for calculating relative humidity is pretty complicated. I won’t give it here, and I don’t understand it fully anyway.

By the way, if the temperature drops to 72 degrees in Selmer, the dew point will drop to 72 degrees as well.

Why?

Because 72-degree air can’t hold enough water to maintain a 73-degree dew point. Water condenses out of the air onto grass and cars, dropping the specific humidity and the dew point.

The dew point will continue to drop as the temperature drops, and the air loses more and more water.

Extreme Weather and Record Temperatures

That book I link above has some really cool statistics in it.

The highest humidity ever recorded was a 95-degree dew point in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia on July 8, 2003. Since the temperature was 108 degrees, the relative humidity would fake you out and say it was 90% or less, even though it was the highest real humidity ever recorded.

Do you wonder what the heat index was that day?

So do weather men. There’s no chart for temperatures and dew points that high. The guess is that it felt like 155 to 160 degrees that day.

Wow.

More Extreme Weather

Here’s more wow …

The town of Bender Qaasim in Somalia averages—AVERAGES—a high of 105 degrees and a dew point of 83 degrees. While this is only a relative humidity of 61%, we have learned that percentage is meaningless. An 83-degree dew point is extremely humid. Such humidity pretty much NEVER happens in the US, not anywhere, not even in Florida or anywhere along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

Thus, the AVERAGE summer heat index is Bender Qaasim is 145o.

145o HEAT INDEX!!!

ON AVERAGE

Because they’re close to the water, their temperature is fortunately very stable and doesn’t get above 113 degrees.

However, at 113o with their over 80o dew point, the heat index is—literally—off the charts. Weathermen have to guess that it’s between 150 and 160o.

Wow.

Hot Seas

The reason the Persian Gulf and Red Sea areas experience that kind of humidity is because the water in those seas gets up near 90o during the summer. That provides a lot of heat for evaporation, filling the air with water vapor.

The record for the Persian Gulf is 96o water. For the Red Sea it’s 98o.

Swim, anyone?

Bangkok, Thailand qualifies as possibly hotter than Persian Gulf countries because it stays hot year round, breaking 90 degrees pretty much every day. One day in April of …

Wait, wait …

I’m pulling too much from the Extreme Weather book above. You’ll have to get it yourself if you want to know the rest.

Dew point is 54o here in Auburn tonight. That’s comfortable no matter what the relative humidity is (55% right now at 71o). The grass will be dry in the morning because it won’t drop to 54 degrees overnight.

 

Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , | 5 Comments

Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians: Chapter Two

Posted on 07/11/2010 by Paul Pavao

If you haven’t been following this series, it begins with Ignatius’ introduction 3 or 4 posts ago on June 28.

The Text of Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians 2

We’re on chapter 2 today. It reads as follows:

As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your most blessed deacon in all things pertaining to God, I
plead with you to let him stay longer, both for your honor and your bishop’s. Also, Crocus—who is worthy of both God and you and whom I have received as a sign of your love—has refreshed me in every way, just as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will also refresh him together with Onesimus [the bishop mentioned in chapter 1], Burrhus, Euplus, and Fronto. Through them I have beheld all your love.
     May I always have joy from you, if I am truly worthy of it. Therefore, it is fitting that you should glorify Jesus Christ in every way, for he has also glorified you. Glorify him so that by a unanimous obedience "you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, in the same judgment, and may all speak the same things concerning the same thing" [1 Cor. 1:10]. Be subject to the bishop and the elders so that you may be sanctified in every way.

My blogs are always way too long. We’re going to keep them shorter and spend several days on chapter 2, so that we can cover deacons in this post, elders and bishops in another, unity in a third, and maybe a couple others like glorifying Jesus Christ through obedience.

But for today, let’s stick to just deacons.

Ranting About Deacons

Deacons are a pet peeve of mine because there’s no such thing.

Let me explain.

The German word for table is tisch. If I were translating a German document, wherever I came across the word tisch, I would write "table."

But let’s say that I was translating a religious document, and the table being talked about was the table of show-bread in the temple. Let’s also say that because I thought that table was exceptionally holy, I didn’t want to call it a table like all other tables. Not knowing what to do, I choose to simply leave the German word tisch untranslated, and I call this one table a "tish."

Over time, as everyone came to call that table a tish, they could easily end up thinking that the document I translated had a special word for table—that it didn’t use the ordinary word for table but some special word.

That is what has happened with the word deacon.

The Greek word diakonos is found in the New Testament 29 times. The word diakoneo is found 32 times. Diakonos is almost exclusively translated "servant" in modern translations and "minister" or "servant" in the KJV. Similarly, diakoneo is translated "serve" almost exclusively.

The exception is 1 Timothy 3, where translators have decided that because it is an "office" of the church, it ought not to be translated servant.

So they left diakanos untranslated as "deacon" twice and diakoneo as "serve as deacon" or "use the office of deacon" three times.

I think that’s wrong, and I really don’t think it’s honest, either.

The Office of Servant

There was an office in the church called "servant," and you had to qualify to be one.

Do you want to bring food to the sick? You had to qualify. Did you want to be on the finance committee, collecting money from the saints and spending it to feed the poor, the widows, and some of the church leaders? You had to qualify. You had to be noted for your walk with the Lord in order to serve in such a position.

Qualifying to Serve

In Acts chapter six we read that there was some conflict in the church about the support of the widows. The apostles didn’t have time to handle it, so they asked the church to pick out seven men that they could put in charge of feeding the widows.

What qualifications did they ask for?

Was it a good business sense? A feel for diplomacy? Compassion for widows? A desire for ministry? A soft heart?

None of those things. Instead they asked for …

  • A good reputation
  • Filled with the Spirit
  • Filled with wisdom

Obviously, Paul felt the same way. If you wanted to be a servant in Ephesus (where Timothy was receiving Paul’s letter), then you needed to be serious, straightforward, not greedy, pure in conscience, and understanding the mystery that is our faith. And you had to have enough experience in Christ to have a "blameless" reputation.

And this was to qualify to serve on the finance committee or to feed widows and orphans.

God’s Standards

God takes his service seriously.

To be a servant, you have to meet the qualifications given above.

To be a widow, you had to meet qualifications as well.

In the early church, the widows and virgins were a force for God. They performed all sorts of services for the church. In return, they were supported—read fed and sheltered—by the church.

Convents and nuns are probably the descendants of the early church’s widows and virgins.

Some of their service is mentioned. She "trusts in God," "continues in supplications and prayers night and day," "washed the saints’ feet," and "relieved the afflicted."

In fact, if she wasn’t known for good works prior to being widowed, she wasn’t allowed to be brought on the church’s roll.

Having Standards Higher than God’s

This is completely off the subject of this post, but since we’ve wandered close to it, I want to address it.

I’ve have a lot of interaction with Mennonite or Mennonite-influence Evangelicals (I like to call them half-Mennonites) over the last 20 years. Their churches—as well as other descendants of the Anabaptists like the Amish, German Brethren, and Hutterites—usually have what they call "standards."

I have a page on Anabaptists at my Christian History for Everyman site, but if you really want to know about the Anabaptists, you should get the book The Secret of the Strength.

Don’t get a different book! There’s a lot of fantasy about who the Anabaptists were based on wishful thinking. The Secret of the Strength by Peter Hoover is very well referenced. He devoted great effort to the references because he’s confronting people of his own Anabaptist background in the book.

I’ve talked to Peter on the phone—well, listened; it’s hard for him to stop talking—and I know people who know him. He’s an honest man who has done the footwork and the research and who has done it well.

I remember talking to a bishop of a Christian community here in Tennessee. He was from an Amish background, and his community had Amish-style standards. One of them was that belts were not allowed; suspenders had to be worn to keep the pants up.

This particular bishop was a truly great man and great Christian, an unusually godly, kind, and wise man, so he was very open and friendly talking to me, even though there was no other reason than friendship for him to let me question him.

I asked him whether he really would refuse to break bread with and fellowship with someone just because he wore a belt. Does God really care about such things?

He told me that it’s a simple fact among Anabaptist communities that if you start letting standards go, the whole community begins wandering away from God … usually very quickly.

While I have the utmost respect for this bishop, who has since died, and while I understand his difficult position, I can’t agree with him. If the community is going to backslide because they enter into fellowship with people who wear belts, then they are not being made holy by God. They’re being made holy by rules, and by rules that are not instituted by God nor by Jesus Christ, Lord and Head of the Church.

I talked to another man just a couple days ago whose church requires their pastors to believe and teach a pre-trib rapture.

Is it any wonder that Christians are split into tens of thousands of denominations?

Unity

We have no idea of the importance of unity. Today, we have forgotten it.

Obviously Ignatius hadn’t forgotten it back in A.D. 107. He mentions glorifying Jesus by a unanimous obedience that causes us to have the same judgment and say the same things.

Unity, according to our Lord—think about it, our Lord, and thus our Commander—Jesus Christ, is what will cause the world to believe that he’s really from God …

Nor do I pray for these alone, but also for those who shall believe in me through their Word, that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may also be one in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. (Jn. 17:20-21)

Together we can know the mind of God (1 Cor. 2:16), and we need to know the mind of God. It is only in Christ’s mind that we can be united. We will never be able to be brought together around the traditions of men.

More later when we get to the end of Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians, chapter two.

 

Posted in Church, History, Holiness | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment